Some thoughts:
Hackage includes
- making the distinction between program, library. ( plugin ?)
- an expanded set of categories
Cpan includes
- tester reviews
- the dreaded 'other' category
To improve fundability once you get to thousands of
libraries/apps/plugins/frameworks/languages
It's not to
At Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:17:59 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
* By default `make install' and `raco setup' compile collections in
parallel on all available processors. (Use `reaco setup -j 1' to
disable if necessary.)
reaco - raco
_
For
On Jul 27, 2010, at 11:26 PM, David Van Horn wrote:
* The core type system of Typed Racket has been substantially
revised. In particular, Typed Racket can now follow significantly
more sophisticated reasoning about the relationships between
predicates. Additionally, Typed Racket
Agreed. Done right, I think there's a PhD in this area for a student who likes
to build and measure systems, including social networking measurements.
Robby and I had a grant that kind of was a seed for this direction: equip
planet libraries with contracts and see how it pressures others to
On Jul 28, 2010, at 12:26 AM, YC wrote:
Other package systems separate the installation step from the import step
Indeed, this is the key design decision separating us from the rest of the
world, and it is not clear whether it was a good decision.
On Jul 27, 2010, at 11:57 PM, Jay McCarthy
YC wrote:
Robby Findler wrote:
I guess the idea is that you'd eliminate the syntactic difference
between a planet-located library and one in the distribution and then
require on some external source to know where the package is located?
Something like that? How would that work?
Hi Robby
On Jul 28, 2010, at 10:03 AM, Dave Gurnell wrote:
Racket's main distribution is big and takes time to compile and install. I'd
personally be in favour of a leaner core distribution with more code in
external packages, so I can choose what I download when I'm only interested
in a single
To add to what Dave said, quick brain dump, hopefully not too unreadable...
Most important for me, I'd like to be able to define multiple (what I'll
call for now) repositories (like Debian apt). So that I can have, for
example, a repository for core official blessed Racket components, one
I've been vexed for a while about parenthetical syntax: I love it,
appreciate what it offers, but also recognize that no amount of
teaching or arguing alters how people perceive it. With the switch to
Racket, and our continuing interest in user interface issues, I
believe it is wise to consider
Sounds like a great idea to me and well worth trying at a larger scale.
One technical question: why not implement this as a reader that
converts things to the usual parenthesized versions of the program and
then, like the at-exp reader, allow people to write
#lang p4p-exp racket
for the p4p
That does sound like the right level, in that this isn't a new
language -- by design.
I started out by trying to create a new syntax; then I realized I
didn't need to; then that I didn't *want* to. By then I was locked
into this file structure and didn't come up for air. I probably
didn't peel
Look up the 'paren-shape stx property.
Jay
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi s...@cs.brown.edu
wrote:
That does sound like the right level, in that this isn't a new
language -- by design.
I started out by trying to create a new syntax; then I realized I
didn't need
At first I thought, how is this different than Honu?
If this isn't a reader, I don't see it being fundamentally different
from Honu. (Many of the same ideas are recreated, actually. The macro
slack term, for example, is exactly what Jon does.)
I think there is a place for a non-sexp reader like
That did the trick -- thanks!
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Jay McCarthy jay.mccar...@gmail.com wrote:
Look up the 'paren-shape stx property.
Jay
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi s...@cs.brown.edu
wrote:
That does sound like the right level, in that this isn't a
Is the audience HtDP students/teachers, professional programmers,
hobbyists, someone else, or all of the above?
And, if the audience includes HtDP students/teachers, would all the HtDP
examples be revised to use P4P? Or would P4P be something to point to,
like, Hey, students have to use the
Eli Barzilay wrote:
The release announcement sketch that I have so far is below. Please
send edits or (changes in order) if you see anything.
Still needed:
Ryan:
* Any public (and documented) syntax/parse macro debugger
additions?
* macro-debugger/emit?
* GUI for
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Stephen De Gabrielle
stephen.degabrie...@acm.org wrote:
It's not to early to think about an expanded set of categories
One idea is to allow module writers to add to the categories or tags so it
becomes a decentralized process, like how blogs do it these days.
From the raco exe help
pma...@mietzekatze:~/Code/eboc $
~/Applications/racket-5.0.1.1/bin/raco help exe
raco exe [ option ... ] source-file
where option is one of
-o file : Write executable as file
--gui : Geneate GUI executable
...
Should be Generate instead of Geneate.
--
PMatos
With a good editor, like that of DrSceme, pardon me, RdRacket, I experience
no difficulty at all with parentheses. In fact I hardly see them. DrRacket
shows me the extent of a subsexpr very micely. I would have, may be, a
problem when parsing symbolic expressions lacking parenteses, unless, of
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Jay McCarthy jay.mccar...@gmail.com wrote:
At first I thought, how is this different than Honu?
I don't know anything about Honu. As far as I can tell it's the great
undead language of the Racket world. If Honu's already solved the
problem and is being actively
Is the audience HtDP students/teachers, professional programmers,
hobbyists, someone else, or all of the above?
People new to Racket, whether students or developers.
And, if the audience includes HtDP students/teachers, would all the
HtDP examples be revised to use P4P?
It's way too early
People already struggle with nesting. Excessive parens make
composition look much harder than it is. Ergo, my desire to remove
all unnecessary parentheses.
While agreeing on goals (integration w/ reader, etc.), I'm ultimately
less interested in H-expressions than in the surface language. That
@Jos
I believe the idea was not to convert people who like s-exprs but rather
to attract all those other programmers (including beginners) who don't
like them. (It might also help convince older CS dept people to allow
changing the intro CS course to H2DP using a non-parenthesis syntax.)
@Shrirm
I have heard students saying that they did not like Scheme syntax/parans
even after using it for a whole semester. I really, to this day, haven't
understood why they did not like parans. But given an option some people
might start liking it/using it. I feel it would be a great idea to have
P4P
Infix notation can be achieved unambiguously if you use LL(1) with
backtracking
...which I didn't want to do.
Pedagogically, it has been immensely valuable to explain to kids that
+ and - aren't some special thing, but are just mere operators -- and
so are string-append and image-overlay and
Everett wrote at 07/28/2010 06:06 PM:
(map (lambda (x) ...)
lst)
is more readable in the Ruby form:
map(lst) {|x| ... }
or even in Javascript with Prototype:
lst.each(function(x) {
...
});
I'll respectfully differ with that last assertion.
In my JavaScript experience
I will definitely use p4p next time I teach racket to beginners.
* My only qualms are about do: and if: as keywords, instead of more
function-like syntax. Looking back at what I found beautiful and elegant
and liberating about scheme the very first time I saw it:
- The whole distinction
Hi Ian,
- The whole distinction between operators and functions is a lie!
Except it's not. I've run into educators who taught Scheme who
thought this way, and the accounts of Scheme they gave were nonsense.
I'm not saying this (nonsensical semantics) is a necessary consequence
of thinking
- The whole distinction between operators and functions is a lie!
Except it's not. I've run into educators who taught Scheme who
thought this way, and the accounts of Scheme they gave were nonsense.
Perhaps I overspoke; it was the idea that I didn't need *two* syntaxes for
calling
29 matches
Mail list logo
